Journal of Environmental Psychology (1996) 16, 33–44 0272-4944/96/010033+12$18.

00/0
 1996 Academic Press Limited

ENVIRONMENTAL
Journalof

PSYCHOLOGY
THE SOCIALIZATION OF ARCHITECTURAL PREFERENCE

MARGARET A. WILSON
Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, U.K.

Abstract

The apparent difference in the appreciation of architecture between architects and ‘lay’ people has been the
focus of much research. If architects truly have different standards of appreciation from nonarchitects, it is
then most likely that these standards of judgement are acquired within the schools of architecture during the
period of architectural education. The paper describes a cross-sectional study of the architectural preferences
of students at two schools of architecture at five different stages of their education. Smallest Space Analysis
(SSA) of the students’ evaluations of 26 examples of contemporary architecture suggests a process of socializ-
ation within the schools of architecture whereby students develop standards of judgement that are both
characteristic of the profession as a whole and shaped by the specific school of training. Analysis of the under-
lying structure of the students’ evaluations of the buildings allows a model of architectural preference to be
proposed. Although the students give a variety of explanations of why they appreciate the buildings they do,
analysis of the associations between the buildings shows that the underlying structure of the evaluations is
clearly based on architectural style. The implications are discussed.

 1996 Academic Press Limited

Introduction architecture that is essentially descriptive, objective

Since the late 1960s, environmental psychologists
have addressed and re-addressed the question of
whether design professionals think differently to
the public. Methodological developments have
taken researchers from semantic differential
studies (e.g. Canter, 1969; Hershberger, 1969),
through repertory grids (e.g. Leff & Deutsch, 1974;
Stringer, 1977), to less-constrained techniques such
as the Multiple Sorting Task (e.g. Groat, 1982;
Devlin, 1990). Researchers have shown that archi-
tects solve both experimental and applied problems
differently from nonarchitects (Edwards, 1974;
Lawson, 1980). One way or another, it is now well
established that design professionals in general,
and architects in particular, hold a different system
of constructs through which they understand and
evaluate the environment.
Although the issues are frequently confused in
the literature, there are two distinctly different sys-
tems of construct under consideration: conceptualiz-
ation and evaluation. The first is a system of con-
cepts with which to organize and understand
33
and nonevaluative, while the second guides subjec-
tive evaluative judgements. Groat (1982) has shown
that architects use different concepts from non-
architects. It has been the assumption that these
concepts are developed during the period of train-
ing, and Wilson and Canter (1990a) have made vis-
ible the conceptual transformation that occurs
across each year of professional training. During
the course of architectural education, students
develop increasingly abstract and more differen-
tiated concepts to organize their knowledge. The
most central concept used to organize their under-
standing is architectural style, a concept that
becomes more complex in its definition with increas-
ing length of education.
Research to date has demonstrated that archi-
tects both conceptualize and evaluate differently
from nonarchitects. The difference in evaluative
judgements between architects and nonarchitects
has received both academic and popular coverage,
and it has often been suggested that rather than
designing for users, architects design for the critical
acclaim of their peers. However, studies of the
34 M. Wilson
architectural value system, notably by Lipman
(1970) and Blau (1980), have suggested that the
most important orientation in architecture is a
humanist one, with architects reporting concern for
both client and user. Nevertheless, there still
appears to be something of a gap between architec-
tural and public opinion, an issue that has been
fuelled by royal interest in the U.K.
Much of the focus for this discrepancy in taste
seems to have been placed on Modernism, and over
the last 15 years new stylistic movements have
developed, along with critical discussion of why they
will succeed where Modernism failed. Charles
Jencks has been the greatest proponent of Post
Modern architecture, and his books did much to
launch the movement. Jencks (1977) claimed that
Post Modern architecture is accessible to lay and
professional people alike owing to what he calls
‘dual coding’. That is, while the code of Modern
architecture is a language that can only be read by
the architecturally trained, Post Modern architec-
ture is a language that can be understood, and thus
appreciated, by all. Groat and Canter (1979) set out
to test empirically these claims for Post Modernism.
Comparing a matched sample of architects and
accountants, they found that reactions to Post Mod-
ernism were mixed for both samples. However,
overall it was still the architects rather than the
accountants who showed the greatest appreciation
for Post Modern architecture.
Since it is likely that socialization during pro-
fessional education is responsible for any differ-
ences between architects and nonarchitects, the
present research focuses on the time spent in archi-
tectural education. The purpose of this study is to
examine the changing system of evaluation in archi-
tectural students at two schools of architecture to
understand the way in which ‘preference’ is social-
ized within professional training. The first aim of
the study is to test the hypothesis that architectural
education systematically instills an evaluative sys-
tem that is characteristic of the architectural pro-
fession in general.
While education is likely to have a general effect,
it is clearly naı̈ve to assume that all members of a
professional group think as one. Previous research
has shown that there are a number of different
orientations in architectural beliefs and values
(Lipman, 1970; Blau, 1980; Wilson & Canter,
1990b), and there is no doubt that variation exists
within the profession as well as between architects
and other groups. However, a great deal of the pre-
vious research comparing ‘lay’ and architectural
evaluation has treated designers as a homogeneous
group, comparing the mean response of professional
and nonprofessional samples.
There are a number of possible reasons for these
differences in orientation and evaluation within the
profession, including all those suggested to influ-
ence nonprofessionals, for example personality (e.g.
Henschen & Hershenson, 1975), gender (e.g. Nasar,
1989) and environmental experience (e.g. Mackin-
tosh, 1982). However, the period of intensive social-
ization characteristic of any form of education must
certainly be considered as a potential determinant
of professional orientation. It can therefore be hypo-
thesized that not only do the schools of architecture
socialize architects into the values of the profession
as a whole, but also that this same process instills a
set of values associated with the specific institution.
Thus, the second aim of the present study is to
identify any variations in the architectural evalu-
ative system that could be attributable to the
specific school of architecture where training occurs.
In terms of Facet Theory, the study tests two
possible facets that might account for differences in
evaluation: ‘Stage of Education’ and ‘School of
Training’. The facet ‘Stage of Education’ consists of
six elements corresponding to the six year groups
sampled, and ‘School of Training’ consists of two
elements corresponding to the two schools of archi-
tecture studied.
Finally, the third aim of the study is to identify
the underlying structure of subjective evaluation in
architecture in order to understand the basis for
evaluative judgements. Through understanding the
basis of architectural evaluative judgements, it may
be possible to provide some tentative guidelines for
environmental education for nonarchitects so that
they can appreciate the built environment as much
as its creators do.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty British architectural stud-
ents took part in the study from two schools of
architecture, one based in Scotland (referred to as
the Northern School) and one based in Southern
England (referred to as the Southern School). The
two schools were of similar size and claimed to have
a similar technologically based orientation. A cross-
sectional sample of 15 students from each of six
years of training took part in the study. The fourth-
year students at the Southern School and the fifth-
 Socialization of Architecture Preference
year students at the Northern School were not rep-
resented as they were on their year out in practice.
Procedure
Each student was interviewed separately. They
were asked to consider 26 colour photographs of
contemporary architecture and to classify them
according to their own personal preferences, from
those they liked the least to those they liked the
most. The categories formed were calibrated against
a scale from 0 to 12, where 0 indicated the most pre-
ferred buildings and 12 indicated the least pre-
ferred buildings. After they had indicated their pref-
erences for all of the buildings, they were also asked
to explain why they liked the buildings in the most
preferred group.
The photographs
The 26 photographs were selected with the help of a
leading architectural educator from his own collec-
tion of slides in order to represent as many of the
recent developments in architecture as possible.
The buildings shown in the photographs were
mainly designed by well-known architects and rep-
resent a variety of building types. Previous research
has shown that the buildings represent a range of
stylistic trends in contemporary architecture that
fall broadly within four main movements: Modern-
ism, Post Modernism, High Tech and Neo-Vernacu-
lar (Wilson & Canter, 1990). Full details of the
buildings can be found in Appendix 1.
Results
The socialization of architectural preference
For each group of 15 students in the same year of
training at each school of architecture, the average
preference score for each building was calculated.
The resulting data matrix has 26 rows of data, each
corresponding to one of the buildings. The 10 vari-
ables in the analysis represented by 10 columns of
data correspond to the 10 groups of students. The
cells of the matrix contain the mean preference
score for each group for each building.
In order to examine the differences in architec-
tural preference between the student samples, the
data were analysed using Smallest Space Analysis
(SSA-I). Smallest Space Analysis is a nonmetric
MDS technique that represents a number of vari-
ables as points in geometric space. The distance
35
between the points is inversely proportional to the
rank order of the associations between the vari-
ables. Thus, the closer together two points are, the
more highly associated are the variables that they
represent. The ‘goodness of fit’ for the represen-
tation is measured by the coefficient of alienation.
While researchers differ in their opinion of what
constitutes an acceptable level of fit, Donald (1994)
suggests 0.2 as an acceptable level, while Donald
and Canter (1990) and Shye et al. (1994) discuss the
issue of discretion in using the measure at all.
In the current analysis, SSA is used to represent
the relationship between each of the 10 variables in
the analysis, i.e. the 10 groups of students. The
associations used were Pearson product–moment
correlations. The closer together two points are, the
more similar were the evaluations of the buildings
made by the two groups of students. By considering
the relationship between the year groups in terms
of the similarity of their preferences for the build-
ings, it is possible to infer how the length of time
spent in architectural education at each of the
schools has influenced the students’ evaluative
judgements. According to the principles of Facet
Theory, the proposed background facets are shown
to be valid in terms of their influence on architec-
tural preference if the plot can be partitioned into
clear regions defined by the facet elements.
The results of the SSA are shown in Fig. 1. The
* Northern
Year 6
*
Northern
Year 4
Northern
Year 1
Northern
* Year 3
* * *
Southern Northern Southern
Year 1 Year 2 Year 2
* Southern
Year 3 *
*
Southern
Year 5
Southern
* Year 6
FIGURE 1. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students’
evaluations of the buildings.
36
coefficient of alienation is 0.1 in three dimensions.
Vectors 1 by 2 are shown. On the left-hand side of
the plot are the points that represent the two
groups of first-year students. The close proximity of
these points shows that the two first-year samples
made very similar evaluations of the buildings,
despite the fact that they were studying at different
schools (r=0.83). Indeed, these two groups of
students are more similar to each other than they
are to the second-year students at their respective
schools. For the first- and second-year students at
the Southern School, r=0.77; for the first- and
second-year students at the Northern School, r=
0.58. This shows how quickly the students are socia-
lized into the values of the profession. First-year
architectural students are likely to be rather diff-
erent from a ‘lay’ sample because of their interest in
and, albeit brief, training in architecture. Neverthe-
less, in this study they represent those with the
least experience of architectural training and as
such are the closest to ‘lay’ opinion.
Following each pair of year groups across the plot,
it is possible to ‘chart’ the differences in architec-
tural evaluation that result from the increasing
length of time spent studying at each school. The
systematic and parallel change in the students’
views in each year of training shows quite clearly
that architectural education socializes the students
in a similar way at both schools of architecture.
Northern
Year 1
* Year 3
* Northern
Southern
Year 1 Year 2
* Southern
FIGURE 2. SSA plot of year groups with respect to the students’ evaluations of the buildings, partitioned according to school and year
of training.
M. Wilson
This supports the first hypothesis of the study, that
professional training in general plays a role in
developing a system of evaluative concepts that are
applied to architecture. The development of this
system of judgement is comparable in two different
schools of architecture. In the first 3 years of train-
ing, the students in each year have remarkably
similar views of architecture. However, the points
representing the students in the fourth year at the
Southern Schools and the fifth year at the Northern
School diverge. The analysis shows that, while
maintaining a similar change in their evaluation in
general, with each successive year of training there
also develop more differences that can be associated
with the specific school of architecture at which
they are training. The points representing the
students in the final year of their training at each
school are the furthest apart, indicating that it is
these students who show the most school-specific
differences. This supports the second hypothesis of
the study. The same process that socializes evalu-
ative concepts that are common to the profession as
a whole is likely also to socialize a specific orien-
tation in architecture that reflects the ethos of the
particular school of training. It is interesting that
the point representing the final-year students at the
Southern School ‘doubles back’ across the plot. This
means that the final-year students are in some
ways more similar to the first-year students than
* Northern
Year 6
*
Northern
Year 4
Northern
* *
Southern
Year 2
Year 3 *
*
Southern
Year 5
Southern
* Year 6
 Socialization of Architecture Preference
the students in the middle years of training. The
partitionings of the plot for the two facets being
tested are shown in Fig. 2.
The results of the first analysis have supported
the two hypotheses of the study, that the evalu-
ations made by architectural students systemati-
cally change as a result of architectural education in
general, and that each particular school of architec-
ture is likely to have an influence on the particular
orientation of the students’ evaluative judgements.
A model of architectural preference
The third aim of the study was to examine what
underlies architects’ evaluations of the buildings.
Content analysis of the students’ explanations for
appreciating the buildings they did revealed a num-
ber of criteria for their evaluations. The principal
criteria cited were the construction or the materials
used, the way in which the building addresses its
function, the theoretical ideas behind the design,
the form or scale of the building, contextual fit and
the account the building takes of the user.
Thus it can be seen that there are many different
reasons given for why a building is appreciated.
However, the use of SSA allows an empirical analy-
sis of what underlies preference judgements with-
out reliance on verbal feedback. By visually rep-
Post Modern
High Tech
Neo-Vernacular
Modern
FIGURE 3. SSA plot of buildings with respect to 150 students’
evaluative judgements, partitioned according to architectural
style.
37
resenting the similarities and differences between
the buildings with respect to the students’ evalu-
ations, it is possible to reveal the structure underly-
ing the students’ judgements of the buildings.
To examine the relationship between the build-
ings with respect to the evaluations made of them,
full data for the 150 students’ judgements were
used. The 26 buildings were used as variables for
SSA and are therefore represented as the points
in the SSA plot. The closer together two buildings
are, the more similarly they are likely to have
been judged across the whole student sample,
whether that is positively or negatively. Pearson
product–moment correlations were used to generate
the association matrix.
This visual representation of the structure of
judgements allows the researcher to discover
whether there are any similarities or differences
between the buildings that might account for the
similarity in the judgements made about them. If
the students were using the many and varied
criteria that they reported in order to base their
evaluations of the buildings, it might be expected
that the buildings would be distributed randomly in
the space. However, the resulting SSA plot, shown
in Fig. 3, shows a very clear stylistic structure
underlying architectural preference. The two-
dimensional solution has a coefficient of alienation
of 0.2.
Figure 3 below shows that the buildings can be
partitioned according to the four main styles of
architecture: Modernism, Post Modernism, Neo-
Vernacular and High Tech. The model suggests, for
architectural students, preferences are likely to be
very predictable within the four stylistic move-
ments. If a student likes one particular Post Modern
building in the set, for example, it is likely that he
or she will also like the other examples. The model
also predicts that if the majority of buildings liked
are within one stylistic region of the plot, there may
also be preferred buildings from an adjacent region,
but it is most unlikely that there will be buildings
from the opposite region. Thus if a student is an
admirer of Neo-Vernacular architecture, there may
also be certain Post Modern buildings and/or certain
Modern buildings that also appeal, but it is very
unlikely that he or she will appreciate High Tech
architecture as well.
Style and education
The results have shown that changes do occur in the
students’ evaluative judgements as a result of the
length of time spent in architectural education, and
38
that the students’ judgements are structured
according to architectural style. The final section of
the results considers the differences in judgement
between the students at each school with respect to
the specific buildings used in the study. Examin-
ation of the mean preference score for each building
across the years of study shows which buildings
become more or less well thought of by the students
at each school. The results show that the difference
between the two schools can be accounted for by the
students’ views of Modern and Post Modern
architecture.
Figures 4 and 5 show contrasting changes in the
students’ evaluation of the work of the British Post
7
Average preference score
2
1 2
FIGURE 4. Average preference scores for TVAM for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern School; (–◆–) Southern School.
8
Average preference score
3
1 2
FIGURE 5. Average preference score for Clifton Nurseries for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern School; (–◆–) Southern
School.
M. Wilson
Modern architect Terry Farrell. With each success-
ive year at the Northern School, the mean prefer-
ence score for these buildings decreases, indicating
increasing preference for each group of students. At
the Southern School, the opposite is true, with each
successive year liking these buildings less.
With respect to Modern architecture, Figs 6 and 7
show the students’ average preference score for the
Rational style of Eisenman and Rossi. These build-
ings are not appreciated by the students at the
Northern School, represented by high average pref-
erence scores across all the years. In contrast, the
students in the later years at the Southern School
rate these architects’ work quite highly.
3 4/5 6
Year of training
3 4/5 6
Year of training
 Socialization of Architecture Preference 39

Evidence from case studies suggests that these
preferences are reflected in the students’ designs.
An interesting example was provided by one of the
final-year students at the Southern School. This
student had completed her undergraduate training
at a different school and had transferred to the
Southern School to complete the post-graduate
diploma. One of the elevations from the first design
she did during the fifth year at the Southern School
is shown in Fig. 8. At the time of the interviews for
this study, the student was nearing completion of
the sixth and final year of her training. During the
time she spent at the Southern School, her views on
design had changed a great deal and she was so dis-
contented with the original design that she had
redone the project. The same elevation of the new
design is shown in Fig. 9. This particular student
provided an opportunity to illustrate how the
specific orientation of the school of architecture can
influence the students’ architectural preferences
and subsequently the way in which they design.
Finally, the results of the first SSA showed that
the final-year students at both schools of architec-
ture were similar in some way in their evaluations
to the first-year students. Examination of the mean
preference scores for specific buildings reveals an
interesting pattern. At both schools of architecture,
the buildings that the first- and final-year students

12

11
Average preference score

10

5
1 2 3 4/5 6
Year of training

FIGURE 6. Average preference score for House VI for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern School; (–◆–) Southern School.

12

11
Average preference score

10

5
1 2 3 4/5 6
Year of training

FIGURE 7. Average preference score for Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern
School; (–◆–) Southern School.
40 M. Wilson
FIGURE 8. Elevation from the original design.
both rate highly are the same, i.e. the Neo-Vernacu-
lar buildings Butterworth House and Wivenhoe
Park (Figs 10 and 11). These buildings gained
approval from the first-year students, were rejected
by the students in the middle of their training and
were ‘re-discovered’ by the final-year students.
Discussion
The results of SSA support the hypothesis that the
period of training in schools of architecture system-
atically instills an evaluative system characteristic
of the profession. The students at both schools have
comparable views of the buildings dependent on the
length of time spent in education. Furthermore,
specific differences exist between the students’ eval-
uative judgements that are associated with the par-
ticular school they attend, and these differences are
more pronounced for students who are in the last 2
years of training.
Therefore it appears that architects are ‘taught
what to like’. It would be of interest to future
research to consider whether the school-specific
influence comes from one or two dominant view-
points within a school, or whether the orientation is
more global within a department, for example
through selection or self-selection of the staff.
The results have shown that, for architectural
students, the underlying structure of architectural
preference is based on architectural style. Despite
the variety of other seemingly ‘objective’ concepts
used by the students to explain their choice of pre-
ferred buildings, the results show a very predictable
pattern to architectural preferences based on the
four main stylistic movements currently in vogue.
This structure is virtually identical to that estab-
lished to underlie the conceptualization of architec-
ture based on nonevaluative concepts (Wilson &
Canter, 1990). Not only do architects use stylistic
classifications to organize their understanding of
architecture, but these results indicate that this
same conceptual structure is also used to make ‘sub-
jective’ judgements in terms of personal preference.
Content analysis of the students’ rationales for
preference revealed many possible explanations of
why a building should be judged good or bad. The
concept that was most rarely applied to their judge-
ments was architectural style, although this is
clearly the basis for their judgements. This suggests
that the students are either unaware that, or
unwilling to state that, architectural style deter-
 Socialization of Architecture Preference 41

West elevation

FIGURE 9. Elevation from the new design.

8
Average preference score

2
1 2 3 4/5 6
Year of training

FIGURE 10. Average preference score for Wivenhoe Park for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern School; (–◆–) Southern
School.

mines their evaluate judgements. It is possible that
the rationale given for their preferences are those
concepts that actually define the styles. However,
the same rationales are often presented in defence
of, or to disparage, quite opposite stylistic move-
ments. For example, while one student might
believe that a concrete Modern building is made of
honest materials and will ‘stand the test of time’,
another student may say the exact same of a
wooden Neo-Vernacular building.
Examination of the content of the evaluative
judgements shows that for these two schools of
architecture, the school-specific differences between
the students center on their opinions of Modern and
Post Modern architecture. The results also showed
that, with respect to Neo-Vernacular architecture,
42
Average preference score
7
3
1 2
FIGURE 11. Average preference score for Butterworth House for each year group at both schools. (–j–) Northern School; (–◆–)
Southern School.
there is some agreement between students at the
outset of their training and those nearing com-
pletion. If students in their first year of training are
considered to be the most similar to nonarchitects in
their judgements, this suggests that it is Neo-Ver-
nacular architecture, rather than Post Modernism,
as Jencks (1977) suggests, that has the potential to
appeal to architects and nonarchitects alike.
It has often been suggested that the role of archi-
tectural psychologists is to establish what architects
should design in order to please their users. Once
the appropriate style has been identified, architects
would then be trained to design in that way. This
suggestion has not met with approval from the
architectural profession. As long as different schools
train architects who appreciate and design different
styles of architecture, the richness and diversity in
the environment will be maintained. Rather than
restricting designers to styles that the users already
understand, environmental education for nonarchi-
tects could result in greater appreciation of other
styles. Once people understand the styles of archi-
tecture that make up their cities, there would be a
variety of different tastes to be catered for by a var-
iety of different architects.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Geoffrey Broadbent
for his help in selecting the photographs, the
students and staff at both schools of architecture,
and Nicky in particular for providing copies of her
designs.
M. Wilson
3 4/5 6
Year of training
References
Blau, J. (1980). A framework of meaning in architecture.
In G. Broadbent, R. Brunt & C. Jencks, Eds, Signs,
Symbols and Architecture. London: John Wiley &
Sons.
Canter, D. (1969). An intergroup comparison of connota-
tive dimensions in architecture. Environment and
Behaviour, 1, 37–48.
Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural
interpretation: architects vs non architects. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research, 7, 235–243.
Donald, I. (1994). The structure of office workers’ experi-
ence of organizational environments. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 241–258.
Donald, I. & Canter, D. (1990). Temporal and trait facets
of personnel assessment. Applied Psychology, An
International Review, 39, 413–429.
Edwards, M. (1974). Comparison of some expectations of
a sample of housing architects with known data. In D.
Canter & T. Lee, Eds, Pscyhology and the Built
Environment. London: Architectural Press.
Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in Post Modern architecture:
an examination using the multiple sorting task.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 2–22.
Groat, L. & Canter, D. (1979). Does Post Modernism com-
municate? Progressive Architecture, December, 84–87.
Henschen, T. & Hershenson, D. B. (1975). Values, inter-
ests and architectural preferences. Man–Environment
Systems, 5, 239–244.
Hershberger, R. G. (1969). A study of meaning and archi-
tecture. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohen, Eds, EDRA 1.
Radleigh: North Carolina State University,
pp. 86–100.
Jencks, C. (1977). The Language of Post Modern Architec-
ture. London: Academy Editions.
Lawson, B. (1980). How Designers Think. London: Archi-
tectural Press.
Leff, H. S. & Deutch, P. S. (1974). Construing the physical
environment: differences between environmental pro-
fessionals and lay persons. In W. Preiser, Ed.,
 Socialization of Architecture Preference 43

Environmental Design Research, Vol. I, Selected (14) Aldo Rossi. Galleratese 2 Apartment Complex,
Papers, EDRA 4. University of Maryland: EDRA, Milan, Italy. 1969–70.
pp. 284–297.
Lipman, A. (1970). Architectural education and the social (15) James Stirling. Neue Staatsgalerie, Stuttgart,
commitment of contemporary British architecture. West Germany. 1985.
The Sociological Review, 18, 5–27. (16) Charles Moore and William Turnbull. Kresge
Mackintosh, E. (1982). High in the city. In P. Bart, A. College, University of California at Santa Cruz,
Chen & G. Francescato, Eds, Knowledge for Design, California, U.S.A. 1965–74.
EDRA 13. University of Maryland: EDRA,
pp. 424–434. (17) Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers. Pompidou
Nasar, J. L. (1989). Symbolic meanings of house style. Centre, Paris, France. 1971–77.
Environment and Behaviour, 21, 235–257.
Shye, S., Elizur, D. & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introducing
Facet Theory: Content Design and Intrinsic Data
Analysis in Behavioural Research. London: Sage.
Stringer, P. (1977). Participating in personal construct
theory. In D. Bannister, Ed., New Perspective in Per-
sonal Construct Theory. London: Academic Press.
Wilson, M. A. & Canter, D. (1990a). The development of
professional concepts. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
national Review, 39, 431–455.
Wilson, M. & Canter, D. (1990b). Who’s who in architec-
ture: a study of architectural heroes. In H. Pamir, V.
Imamoglu & N. Teymur, Eds, Culture, Space, History,
Volume 5. Ankara: METU, pp. 43–54.

(7).
Appendix 1: Building Details

(1) Foster Associates, Sainsbury Centre for Visual

Arts, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk,
U.K. 1975–78.
(2) Philip Johnson/Burgee Architects. AT&T
Building, New York City, U.S.A. 1978.
(3) Richard Meier. Museum für Kunsthandwerk,
Frankfurt, West Germany.
(4) Michael Graves. Public Service Building,
Portland, Oregan, U.S.A. 1980.
(5) Taft Architects. Municipal Control Building,
Quail Valley Utility District, Missouri City, Texas,
U.S.A. 1978–80.
(6) Robert Venturi. Addition to Carol M. Newman (8).
Library, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg,
Virginia, U.S.A. 1970.
(7) Terry Farrell. Clifton Nurseries, Covent
Garden, London, U.K. 1981.
(8) Terry Farrell. TVAM, Camden, London, U.K.
(9) Richardo Bofil. Le Theatre, Ville Nouvelle of
Marne-la-Vallee, France. 1979–83.
(10) Mario Botta. House, Viganello. 1980–81.
(11) Quinlan Terry. Wivenhoe Park, Essex, U.K.
1962.
(12) François Spoerry. Port Grimaud, France,
1965–69.
(13) Mies Van der Rohe. School of Architecture,
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, U.S.A.
1962. (11).
44 M. Wilson

(24).

(18) Claude Megson. Wood Street Townhouses,

Freemans Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. 1974–75.
(19) Claude Megson. Todd House, Rama Rama,
(14). Auckland, New Zealand. 1969.
(20) Le Corbusier. Notre-Dame-du-Haut,
Ronchamp, France. 1950–54.
(21) Mies van der Rohe. Seagram Building, New
York, U.S.A. 1958.
(22) Moore, Perez Associates, Inc., UIG and Ron
Filson. Piazza d’Italia, New Orleans, Louisiana,
U.S.A. 1975–80.
(23) Peter Eisenman. House VI, Connecticut,
U.S.A. 1977.
(24) Turner Brooks. Butterworth House,
Starksboro, Vermont, U.S.A. 1973.
(25) Alvar Aalto. Church of Vuoksenniska, Imatra,
Finland. 1957–59.
(23). (26) Ricardo Bofil and Taller de Arquitectura. La
Muralla Roja, Calpe, Spain. 1969–83.